3.1.1 In-App Purchase - Change loot boxes

I have this concern as well. A lot of apps sell loot boxes for in game currency, and that in game currency can be purchased with money, or it can be obtained in game (albeit much more slowly). Then that in game currency is used to purchase loot boxes. I would wager that a lot of games make most of their revenue from users purchasing in game currency, just to buy these loot boxes. I am wondering whether this new rule applies to these loot boxes purchased indirectly.

By definition, 3.1.1s' title spells it out...

3.1.1 In-App Purchase:

• Apps offering “loot boxes” or other mechanisms that provide randomized virtual items for purchase must disclose the odds of receiving each type of item to customers prior to purchase.

About the change made to 3.1.1 In-App Purchase,

I welcome Apple's regulations.

Many Japanese people welcome this regulation. Because Japanese social games are loot box heaven (in Japan, we call gacha). There are a lot of patients with serious smartphone game dependence due to root box in Japan. Many requests for improvement have been delivered to the Consumer Affairs Agency, but Japan's government does not take any measures and leaves it to the voluntary control of game companies. Although the game company regulates the probability display, it is the　only scope of self-regulation, there is no legal binding force. Still, popular games such as Monster Strike (Mixi Co., Ltd.) and Puzzle & Dragon (Gung Ho Online Entertainment Co., Ltd.) do not show probability, regulations are not being kept.

These companies argue that all cards and all items are all in terms of their high level of rarity and that there is no point in displaying probabilities.

Although it is hard to believe that addiction can be cured only by displaying the probability, we can reduce the entrance into addiction.

Still, the Japanese guidelines do not reflect Apple 's regulations, but I hope that it will be reflected soon.

In addition, these companies will dare to fuckingly excite and create cards with even higher rarity among cards with high reality, trying to make addiction. For example, among the cards of the same star 5, weak cards and strong cards are present, and the difference is very large.

We strongly urge apple to be a probability display obligation not only for rarity, but also for each card and item.

>We strongly urge apple

Intreresting comments, thanks - be sure to let Apple know directly by using 'Report Bugs' to file an enhancement request, adding your report # to your comment for reference, thanks.

Upon further consideration, I've come to think that this requirement applies to "loot boxes" purchased with virtual currency as well. By virtual currency refering to the ones purchased with real money

There must be an intent behind this guideline and the most obvious one is the actual thing, getting apps to display probabilities for loot boxes. If Apple were to allow this "loop-hole" where boxes purchased with virtual currency were not subject to this guideline, everyone in the community would naturally migrate to this method, as it would be easier. But then the guideline would have no meaning, it would just flip everyone from one side of the fence to the other while being in the same yard somehow sort of speak.

I think the guideline is clear - the 'loot box' in 3.1.1 bullet #6 contains virtual products or virtual currency. According to 3.1.1 bullet #1 a virtual product or virtual currency can only be purchased through IAP. This guidleine does not apply to real products. It also does not apply to purchases made outside of IAP. Real money and real products would make it gambling - covered under 5.3.

.

Quick question,

For a loot box that gives the same item type but with different quantities (at random).
Do we have to disclose the odds of each quantity?

Thanks